Cranker 400 to 500 rev rate this style creates the most angle at the pocket and the most room crossing the boards.

Tweener or spinner rev rate around 325 to 385, these guys have the better shot on the most patterns as they play around the middle of the lane creating angularity and playing straighter than the crankers. I'm a cranker but play mostly with tweeners and these guys always seem like they have a good look.

Stroker rev rate around 285 to 325 these guys play the shot straighter staying out of trouble and playing more right of the Cranker and Tweener.

This is just my take on these styles.

P.S. You figured right BowlGator you put it on the right site you will get nothing but courtesy and knowledge over there you would of had pages and pages of getting ripped apart.

I really wish they would get away from these 3 'definitions'. It seems people always try to push a bowler into one of these 3 categories; being that styles are so varied these days, most bowlers use a little out of each category.

With todays aggressive equipment, even a low rev bowler can play in cranker oil, so does that make him a cranker since he's crossing the lane? What about the guy with 500 revs, but throws it 25 mph, so he has to play in stroker oil so the ball can recover?

Then again, if you aren't clearly a stroker, or a clear case cranker, that automatically makes you an inbetweener eh?

Thats how Ive understood it, but I will also conceded its one of those things that Im sure will be debated until Jesus comes back and I can conceive of bowlers sitting at the wedding dinner table with Jesus debating this.

I will also strongly agree with bullproofmonk in that I think its misleading to put all bowlers in one of these three categories. THIS is where I think coaching breaks down in the ranks of bowling. We try to categorize everything (which in part is probably necessary) but we get in these mind sets that that is all there is and have a hard time dealing with anything outside those categorizations. Then, because its difficult to deal with, we try to force it into a category we know and understand instead of perhaps pushing the boundaries of what we know and understand.

One thing I have learned in my return to bowling this year; There is no such thing as a blanket description or category or a blanket method to bowling. Everyone is a little different and while may largely exhibit, or predominantly exhibit characteristics and styles from one of the three categories, I dont think there is a bowler out there that is solely and entirely one style or another.

I think bowling, perhaps bowlers, would benefit more from being able to bowl very well in each of those styles. Would this not add levels of versatility to adapt and overcome most all lane and playing conditions? Should it not be the goal of coaching to prepare the student for the widest possible conditions? Instead of just defaulting, for instance, to saying well your a cranker so you're not going to do so well on this particular pattern or this particular length of oil so lets just focus on making you the best on the others, should we not say because of your style you are weak on this pattern or this length of oil so lets get to work improving your game there or giving you another style you can use to overcome those conditions?

LOL...Chris Barnes is one of those bowlers that really doesnt "fit" anywhere. I don't think he is a cranker like Tommy Jones or Robert Smith and he is not a stroker like Walter Ray. I think that he does come closest to being a stroker. But he is one of the most versitile players out there hands down.

Stroker.....Danny Weiseman (better?)

__________________High Game 300 High Series 780 PRO PURPLE

TGL Bowler of the Year 04-05

"The story of life is quicker than the wink of an eye. The story of love is hello and goodbye. Until we meet again"

I think bowling, perhaps bowlers, would benefit more from being able to bowl very well in each of those styles. Would this not add levels of versatility to adapt and overcome most all lane and playing conditions? Should it not be the goal of coaching to prepare the student for the widest possible conditions? Instead of just defaulting, for instance, to saying well your a cranker so you're not going to do so well on this particular pattern or this particular length of oil so lets just focus on making you the best on the others, should we not say because of your style you are weak on this pattern or this length of oil so lets get to work improving your game there or giving you another style you can use to overcome those conditions?

Just my very long two cents on the matter, LOL.

I've always understood it as switching your definitions of tweener and stroker. Stroker being one end of the spectrum, and cranker being the opposing side, Tweener being the middle, or between the two (that sounds like a smart a$$ reply, but its not meant that way.) and i could be WAY off here, thats just how i understood it

Also, i would think that every (or almost every) pro on tour has got to strive at some point in their career to do exactly what you said, and be able to adapt to different conditions. That may not mean they can play both stroker and cranker lines, but they should be able to get close, and adapt from week to week. Bill O'neal and Chris Barnes come to mind right away as players that I think do this.

i've never known what to consider myself, i have above average revs, probably between 370 and 470, but i also feel comfortable taking a bunch off, moving right and playing up the boards. when it dries out, i can move left and swing the lane if i have to as well.

Thats how Ive understood it, but I will also conceded its one of those things that Im sure will be debated until Jesus comes back and I can conceive of bowlers sitting at the wedding dinner table with Jesus debating this.

I will also strongly agree with bullproofmonk in that I think its misleading to put all bowlers in one of these three categories. THIS is where I think coaching breaks down in the ranks of bowling. We try to categorize everything (which in part is probably necessary) but we get in these mind sets that that is all there is and have a hard time dealing with anything outside those categorizations. Then, because its difficult to deal with, we try to force it into a category we know and understand instead of perhaps pushing the boundaries of what we know and understand.

One thing I have learned in my return to bowling this year; There is no such thing as a blanket description or category or a blanket method to bowling. Everyone is a little different and while may largely exhibit, or predominantly exhibit characteristics and styles from one of the three categories, I dont think there is a bowler out there that is solely and entirely one style or another.

I think bowling, perhaps bowlers, would benefit more from being able to bowl very well in each of those styles. Would this not add levels of versatility to adapt and overcome most all lane and playing conditions? Should it not be the goal of coaching to prepare the student for the widest possible conditions? Instead of just defaulting, for instance, to saying well your a cranker so you're not going to do so well on this particular pattern or this particular length of oil so lets just focus on making you the best on the others, should we not say because of your style you are weak on this pattern or this length of oil so lets get to work improving your game there or giving you another style you can use to overcome those conditions?

Stroker: "Elegant", ball and slide foot arrive at the foul line at the same time. Lower revs, speed varies.

Tweener: Between the two extremes. A 'hybrid' of the two styles. Revs and timing varies from player to player.

Cranker: Usually late timing, less slide than stroker (with exceptions, of course). High revs, high speed.

For example:
I consider myself as a power player/cranker. My speed isn't that high(16-17'ish), but my revrate is near 500. I have a late timing but I slide quite a bit (about a foot and a half).

I've heard this 'timing' thing before, and timing does effect rev rate based on leverage, but what about people like PDW who has a very 'elegant' style and revs the ball. His timing is great, but he can and will cross the lane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackInTheGame

Does ball speed play into this?

This is one of the things I was looking at, if throw tweener revs at a high ball speed, does that make me a stroker?

Ok, bear with me because i am new at this sport. How do I determine what my revs are? I am reading all this trying to determine "what I am" and it looks like it all comes down to revs. How do I figure this out?

Ok, bear with me because i am new at this sport. How do I determine what my revs are? I am reading all this trying to determine "what I am" and it looks like it all comes down to revs. How do I figure this out?

I personally think it has more to do with timing than it does speed or revs. Sure, there tends to be rev categorizations that come for certain timings, but they aren't concrete. Chris Barnes has near perfect timing, but gets rev rates in the 400's. If you go by rev rate, then he would be a cranker, but he clearly doesn't crank on the ball. His delivery is smooth and clean. Some have characterized him and as "Power stroker" which I think is an accurate description of him.

Robert Smith is a classic example of a Cranker. His timing is a little late, his speed is high and his rev rate is HUGE. If you watch the slow mo of his release on Youtube, you can see his timing is just a little late and he absolutely jacks on it at the bottom of the swing!

Pete Weber is another "anomaly" in that his timing is pretty close to perfect, but he generates a lot of revs. Cranker? Stroker? Power stroker? Tweener?

I've heard this 'timing' thing before, and timing does effect rev rate based on leverage, but what about people like PDW who has a very 'elegant' style and revs the ball. His timing is great, but he can and will cross the lane.

This is one of the things I was looking at, if throw tweener revs at a high ball speed, does that make me a stroker?

Shouldn't styles be revs/speed. ie. 20 revs/mph

PDW has smooth timing and is a Stroker. Some consider him a "Power" stroker. The reason he gets so much hook and crosses the lane is not his HIGH revs. Its his High Axis Rotation. He has almost 90 Degrees so his ball is going to hook. But his low rev rate gives him an extreme amount of control. If his rev rate was high with his Axis Rotation he would be hitting the 7 pin every shot at the speed he plays. His rev rate is not too high at all. He is just a smooth bowling with alot of side rotation and less hand. Chris Barnes cranks the crap out of it but he throws hard and has less axis rotation he gets behind the ball more.

LMAO. I love seeing people hooking the lane and saying "its to dry to play straight" Ahh ignorance is bliss

I need to see what my rev rate is now. I just got some lighter hooking balls, the Cobalt Pearl and Gemstone. They allow me to play to the right and throw straighter with higher revs. I love the look they give me now. I had the problem with never being able to play down and in because my natural hook is alot more than most people. But now instead of buying higher performance balls i switched to lane 1 and tried the lighter hooking balls first and now i own everything they have out right now besides the red death and Dynamo x2.